Last week’s strategy: The Barnum Slide

Statements that feel specific but apply to everyone create false intimacy.

Anyone try it? Did you write a sentence that felt personal but was actually universal?

Did faces react?

Week 3 gave you a tool: Life Cycle Assessment.

You learned that where you draw the system boundary changes the entire answer.

• Cotton tote vs. plastic bag? Depends on how many times you reuse it.
• Beyond Burger vs. chicken? Depends on whether you count land use.
• Organic cotton vs. conventional? Depends on which impact you measure.

That’s not just an LCA skill — that’s systems thinking. And you’ll need it again today.

Last week: “Is this product really green?”

This week: “Is this energy source really clean?”

Same question. Bigger system boundary.

Solar panels look perfect — until you widen the boundary to include timing (when the sun shines vs. when you need power), storage (where does the excess go?), and grid stability (who fills the gap at sunset?).

This is your portable toolkit — system-boundary thinking works for fashion, energy, food, transport. Every week builds on it.

This one graph explains why solar energy alone can’t save us.

This tension drives every energy policy debate.

Which energy source has killed the most people per unit of electricity produced?

1. Nuclear

2. Coal

3. Solar

4. Wind

Vote now.

Coal kills approximately 24.6 people per TWh of electricity produced.

That includes mining accidents, air pollution, respiratory disease.

Nuclear? 0.03 deaths per TWh. Even including Chernobyl and Fukushima.

OK, that one was easy. But here’s where it gets weird…

Source: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007) The Lancet; Our World in Data (2023)

Solar: 0.05 deaths per TWh. Wind: 0.04 deaths per TWh.

Both are higher than nuclear.

Rooftop installation falls. Manufacturing accidents. Mining for rare earth minerals.

The point: The energy source the public fears most (nuclear) is statistically the safest. The one they trust most (solar) is slightly more dangerous per kWh. Perception ≠ reality.

Source: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007); Sovacool et al. (2016) Journal of Cleaner Production

For Hong Kong, only three matter in practice: Solar, Wind, and Waste-to-Energy.

The cruel irony: the more solar you build, the deeper the belly and the steeper the ramp. More solar makes the duck worse — until storage catches up.

Maria in San Diego installed rooftop solar in 2015. Her electricity bill dropped from $200/month to $12. She told everyone: “Solar pays for itself.”

Then San Diego Gas & Electric changed the rules. Time-of-use pricing meant Maria was selling power at midday — when it was worth almost nothing — and buying it back at peak evening rates.

Her savings dropped to $40/month. Her panels still worked perfectly. The economics didn’t.

Meanwhile, California was paying Arizona to take its excess solar power — negative wholesale prices. The grid couldn’t handle what it asked for.

Governor Schwarzenegger said “solar panels on every rooftop.” Nobody mentioned what happens when every rooftop turns on at the same time.

Sources: CAISO Duck Curve data; CPUC NEM 3.0 proceedings; San Diego Union-Tribune reporting

Klaus worked in the lignite mines of Schwarze Pumpe, Lausitz, for 30 years. His father mined there. His grandfather too. Three generations of brown coal.

The Energiewende shut his mine. The government promised retraining. Klaus was 55.

Five years later: 60% of retrained workers in the Lausitz region were unemployed or in worse-paying jobs. The town’s population halved. The local school closed. The pub closed.

And Germany’s CO₂ emissions? Barely changed for years — because Berlin simultaneously shut down zero-carbon nuclear plants and temporarily burned more coal to fill the gap.

Klaus lost his livelihood for a transition that, for a decade, didn’t even reduce emissions.

Sources: Agora Energiewende; IW Köln regional labor studies; Clean Energy Wire; UBA emissions data

The Henderson family in rural Ontario had a $120/month electricity bill in 2009. That year, Premier Dalton McGuinty signed the Green Energy Act. “We will create a new industry and thousands of jobs.”

Feed-in tariffs guaranteed solar producers 80 cents per kWh — when market price was 3–5 cents. Someone had to pay the difference. The Hendersons did.

By 2016, their bill was $250/month. The “Global Adjustment” charge — the hidden cost of renewable subsidies — was larger than the cost of actual electricity.

Ontario lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs (energy costs were one factor). In 2018, the governing Liberals won one seat. The worst electoral defeat in the province’s history.

Sources: Ontario Energy Board rate data; Ontario Auditor General (2015); Statistics Canada

None of them are anti-renewable.

All of them are anti-simplicity.

• California proves: timing and storage matter as much as generation.
• Germany proves: sequencing matters — don’t kill nuclear before renewables can replace it.
• Ontario proves: cost distribution matters — who pays for the transition?

The transition is necessary. The question is how to not destroy people along the way.

Castle Peak Power Station, Tuen Mun — one of the largest coal-fired plants in Asia.

In 2007, when the government proposed building another polluting facility in Tuen Mun, District Councillor Lung Shui-hing stood up:

“Why Tuen Mun again? The government is treating the district like a garbage dump where all the unwanted facilities are found.”

All 13 councillors voted unanimously against. They noted Tuen Mun already housed: Castle Peak Power Station, a recycling park, a steel mill, oil tanks, and a landfill.

Government officials later acknowledged that easterly winds — which carry pollutants away from the main urban areas — influenced site selection.

The pollution isn’t accidental. The location was chosen because the people living downwind were deemed less likely to complain.

Source: SCMP, August 18, 2007

Mrs Ho, 56, developed an airway allergy she attributes partly to Hong Kong’s air pollution. She described it to SCMP:

“I coughed uncontrollably, drawing odd stares and dirty looks from people around me on the street.”

Dr Loretta So Kit-ying, respiratory medicine specialist: “Nitrogen dioxide will cause irritation to the airways, leading to a range of respiratory diseases.”

In 2015, Tuen Mun recorded 395 hours of “high” or above air quality readings — the worst in Hong Kong for the second consecutive year.

Sources: SCMP, Victor Ting, July 19, 2019; SCMP, Ernest Kao, November 30, 2015

Prof Anthony Hedley (HKU School of Public Health): “Probably 100 per cent of the population is exposed, at unacceptable levels, to this environmental hazard.”

Sources: Clean Air Network / HKU (2024 Review); Hedley Environmental Index (hedleyindex.hku.hk)

HK’s renewable potential could cover nearly half its electricity. The target is 7.5–10%. CLP says the future is nuclear imports. The city chose to outsource its energy conscience.

Sources: EMSD; CLP & HK Electric annual reports; Energy Connects, August 2024

“Hong Kong should double its nuclear energy imports from mainland China to achieve carbon neutrality, rather than investing in local renewable energy.”

PRO-CLIMATE argues against. PRO-DEVELOPMENT argues for.

(Or does it? Which side are you really on?)

Fact + Human Story + Stakes = Spectacle

Don’t say: “Fossil fuels cause emissions.”

Say: “Mrs Ho coughs uncontrollably on the street and strangers give her dirty looks. She lives downwind from Castle Peak. You’re paying for cheap electricity with her lungs.”

Don’t say: “We need renewable energy mandates.”

Say: “Germany did it. California did it. Hong Kong says ‘too expensive.’ Is your child’s health too expensive?”

Don’t say: “Energy transitions are complex.”

Say: “Ontario rushed renewables. Electricity bills doubled. Factories closed. Workers lost jobs. The government was wiped out. One seat. Is that the transition you want?”

Don’t say: “We need reliable baseload power.”

Say: “Germany spent €500 billion on renewables. When the wind doesn’t blow, they import nuclear from France. Klaus lost his job, his pension, his town. The carbon needle barely moved.”

If you’re still deciding on some traits, here are some starting points — mix, match, or invent your own:

Ask yourself: What do I stand to lose? That’s where your story begins.

Start Timer Reset Timer

People holding a warm cup of coffee rated strangers as more trustworthy than those holding iced drinks.

They had no idea the cup mattered.

This is Embodied Cognition (Williams & Bargh, 2008).

The body doesn’t just receive information — it shapes judgment.

• Physical warmth → social warmth
• Heaviness → seriousness
• Roughness → difficulty

The brain takes sensory shortcuts constantly.

The arguments that landed today weren’t abstract policy statements.

They made you feel something in your body.

Not “coal combustion produces particulate matter affecting respiratory health.”

But: “Mrs Ho coughs uncontrollably on the street. Strangers give her dirty looks. She doesn’t know how to explain that the air itself is making her sick.”

Not “energy transitions have economic costs.”

But: “Klaus is 55. His mine closed. His pension vanished. His town is dying.”

That’s sensory hijack. Body-first, logic second.

Make your audience physically uncomfortable — on purpose.

One image. One sentence. Body-first.

Kurzgesagt (~10 min). Concludes nuclear and renewables should be partners, not opponents.

Vox (~5 min) — Visual deep-dive into why more solar creates grid problems.

Kurzgesagt (~15 min). The concept of “personal carbon footprint” was invented by BP’s ad agency in 2005.

Anita Tang (56) and her architect husband Stephen (62) installed solar panels at Fairview Park, Yuen Long, in October 2018.

• Installation cost: HK$180,000
• Monthly earnings from CLP Feed-in Tariff: HK$2,500–3,000
• Expected payback: ~6 years
• Approval took two months instead of two weeks

Anita: “Some suppliers said they were registered, but we couldn’t find their address.”

Village house owner Newman Lau Man-choi in Clear Water Bay can only use half his rooftop — by regulation.

Sources: SCMP, Athena Chan, July 14, 2019; HKFP, December 25, 2018

Solar: Abundant sunlight; low operating costs. But: high initial costs, requires significant space, production variability. Duck Curve problem at scale.

Wind: Clean and renewable; offshore potential. But: high installation/maintenance costs, marine and bird life impact. Blade disposal problem.

Hydropower: Reliable, low GHG. But: ecosystem disruption, zero feasibility in HK.

Geothermal: Consistent, small footprint. But: wrong geology for HK. EMSD project is ground-source heat pumps only.

Biomass: Uses organic waste. But: deforestation risk, combustion emissions.

Tidal/Wave: Predictable, minimal visual impact. But: high cost, early-stage. CityU research exploring potential.

Note: Energy data evolves rapidly. Always check for most recent reports.